Climategate II

[luckytxn 2,265]

Real science would never do this.

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [briffa] re AR4 [uN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Proves the theory..."You get what you pay for"

[Neonred 3,636]

Climate change? Global warming?

Yes, I can believe it is true since it has happened several times in the history of the earth (without the help or influence of man). Is this global warming the result of man? Could very well be. I think the real problem is there are getting to be too damn many people on earth.

The real solution? Get rid of several billion people. That should solve the problem for many years to come.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Neonred

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The problem is believing anything the Heartland Institute of Advanced RWN Mythology has to say...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The problem is believing anything the Heartland Institute of Advanced RWN Mythology has to say...

You really think THAT is the problem? Believing one political bag of nuts over the other political bag of nuts?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You really think THAT is the problem? Believing one political bag of nuts over the other political bag of nuts?

If you got worked up by this bag of nuts then yes you have a problem. One need not buy the BS of the polar opposite bags of nuts to see through the agenda of the Heartland Institute.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you got worked up by this bag of nuts then yes you have a problem. One need not buy the BS of the polar opposite bags of nuts to see through the agenda of the Heartland Institute.

And one need not buy into the agenda of the Heartland Institute to see that Global Warming is bought and paid for by government seeking more power and control.

[luckytxn 2,265]

And one need not buy into the agenda of the Heartland Institute to see that Global Warming is bought and paid for by government seeking more power and control.

Exactly. It is not surprising that many do not see the huge problem that Climategate I or II is doing or even comments on it. Maybe they are hoping it will disappear.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Exactly. It is not surprising that many do not see the huge problem that Climategate I or II is doing or even comments on it. Maybe they are hoping it will disappear.

Or, since Climategate I has largely been poo-pooed, those behind Climategate II are at it again? Just saying...

[luckytxn 2,265]

Or, since Climategate I has largely been poo-pooed, those behind Climategate II are at it again? Just saying...

Climategate I has only been poohed poohed by the ones affected by it. It showed also a huge conspiracy to force a theory as a real science and get any that disagree with the science or any study as the enemy. This shows even more so that a promising theory that should be maybe be looked at as a now faked science that people are going to just disregard and not care about. A shame really.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The science is not nearly as unsettled as these RWNs would have you believe. That isn't an argument for the other side, it is an argument against buying into the OP.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Science should always be "unsettled". When the science is "settled", it becomes doctrine.

[AKteacher 104]

You say that this is some sort of conspiracy theory. But there IS broad agreement. Most scientists concur with the vast body of data that consists of many, many climate and atmospheric measurements worldwide, over time, that overwhelmingly indicate that Earth's climate is warming up rapidly. The relative few who dispute the validity of these measurements are mostly industry-financed groups (like the Heartland Institute) that have a vested interest in the status quo, or the lunatic fringe (flat-Earthers & conspiracy theorists). Maybe you should turn off the talk radio and take some science classes, then look at the data so that you can be better informed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Or, since Climategate I has largely been poo-pooed, those behind Climategate II are at it again? Just saying...

So you mean the government is still providing the same type of funding to climate change research that they were 2 years ago? You mean climate change legislation is still on track?

[luckytxn 2,265]

You say that this is some sort of conspiracy theory. But there IS broad agreement. Most scientists concur with the vast body of data that consists of many, many climate and atmospheric measurements worldwide, over time, that overwhelmingly indicate that Earth's climate is warming up rapidly. The relative few who dispute the validity of these measurements are mostly industry-financed groups (like the Heartland Institute) that have a vested interest in the status quo, or the lunatic fringe (flat-Earthers & conspiracy theorists). Maybe you should turn off the talk radio and take some science classes, then look at the data so that you can be better informed.

Actually most scientists do not agree. This shows that they have suppressed data and faked the theory in order to get the outcome they desired. They now are surprised that many are fleeing this. There has many that dispute the data but of course these very same emails show that they have tried to suppress any and all contrary data. Now all I have heard is nothing to dispute these emails but stay to the party line. I happen to have a Science degree. Everything about the forcing of this theory into the mainstream has been falsified.